All I am saying is that it seems like something is attached to this brain, or existing in unison with it, if the brain is just movement.

What is the rate of causation between the two variables (1.0? .5?)? What scale of measurement did you use to measure the interaction?

I say all your posts come from a yellow lerprechaun, sure you are physcially responsible for your posts, but the leprechauns merely place the illusion (attached to your brain) in your mind that you are responsible for the ideas.

There's no experiment that can be done to show that our awareness is or is not energy and forces. We can show how the functional awareness comes from the complexity of evolution, but we've yet to explain the whole part about being here, experiencing that physical awareness illusion that A.I. programmers and scientists are trying so hard to produce.

I've attempted to explain this, and have come up with a fairly strong argument, probably stronger than Dawkins argument in the God Delusion that so many atheists so readily subscribe to, so, I'd like you to read it more thoroughly.

I also find it amusing when people resort to insults in a debate based on their current world view, as it tends to show that someone doesn't understand the argument, or even more importantly is losing the argument. I've never been mocked by someone interested in good debate, but I have been mocked by atheists and Christians alike. I also find it amusing when one resorts to a technical term that they expect the person they're debating not to understand in an attempt to make themselves appear more intelligent.

And if my argument was illogical or irrational, or magical, based on something that isn't true, then you should have no problem showing me what is irrational about it.

I.E. Christianity is irrational because of evolution. The flying spaghetti monster is irrational because there's no basis to make the assumption that it is real.

Well, I hate to say it, but I've seen no evidence of anyone comprehending this argument yet, especially you, Ambassador Pony.

Free Thinker, what I don't understand is how you get from 'everything is motion' to 'consciousness cannot simply be motion'. Perhaps I just missed it, but where was your proof that consciousness cannot be just motion? That really seems to be the crux of your argument.

Logged

When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bike. Then I realised, the Lord doesn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me. - Emo Philips

There's no experiment that can be done to show that our awareness is or is not energy and forces. We can show how the functional awareness comes from the complexity of evolution, but we've yet to explain the whole part about being here, experiencing that physical awareness illusion that A.I. programmers and scientists are trying so hard to produce.

I've attempted to explain this, and have come up with a fairly strong argument, probably stronger than Dawkins argument in the God Delusion that so many atheists so readily subscribe to, so, I'd like you to read it more thoroughly.

I also find it amusing when people resort to insults in a debate based on their current world view, as it tends to show that someone doesn't understand the argument, or even more importantly is losing the argument. I've never been mocked by someone interested in good debate, but I have been mocked by atheists and Christians alike. I also find it amusing when one resorts to a technical term that they expect the person they're debating not to understand in an attempt to make themselves appear more intelligent.

And if my argument was illogical or irrational, or magical, based on something that isn't true, then you should have no problem showing me what is irrational about it.

I.E. Christianity is irrational because of evolution. The flying spaghetti monster is irrational because there's no basis to make the assumption that it is real.

Well, I hate to say it, but I've seen no evidence of anyone comprehending this argument yet, especially you, Ambassador Pony.

You claim that a causal relationship exists between an ethereal force and the human brain, but cannot demonstrate a clear instance of this relationship, and to what degree one variable changes proportional to the other. That's all that matters. If you cannot:

a) demonstrate the existence of this forceb) measure its interaction with other variables you claim it interacts with

, then my leprehaun analogy is of equal truth value as your theory. Why haven't you published? What is preventing you?

Specific language is meant to prevent misunderstandings, not the opposite. I am perplexed, honestly, that you suggest I used "technical terms" to obfuscate. Which ones did I use?

Concerning insults, you get what you put into a discussion. You make a grandiose claim, fail to support it with anything but conjecture (that seems to have been brewing in your head for an amount of time sufficient to make it indistinguishable from fact to you), and you arrogantly suggest that criticism is due to failure to understand your genius theory. Ya, you're going to get called names, but only ones appropriate for the behaviour you demonstrate.

You know what? I'll just wait to see your final thesis when it is publised in the academic journal of the solipsism society.

I've attempted to explain this, and have come up with a fairly strong argument, probably stronger than Dawkins argument in the God Delusion that so many atheists so readily subscribe to, so, I'd like you to read it more thoroughly.

If your argument is strong, then our failure to agree with it is the result of your inability to communicate.

I also find it amusing when people resort to insults in a debate based on their current world view, as it tends to show that someone doesn't understand the argument, or even more importantly is losing the argument.

Kind of like how you keep saying that since we don't really understand your argument, you must be right?

The fact that you don't understand what I am saying isn't what makes me right.

Its the fact that your lack of understanding of the concept is what leads to the inability to having an actual debate.

Now, I know science and neurology can easily show that the brain can make something that it would perceive as awareness.

However, its the fact that I am here, and that energy is only movement that is so remarkable.

I am also not attributing it to some "ethereal force."

All I am saying is that by virtue of philosophy, it is evident, if you understand what I am saying, that actual awareness isn't energy or a force.

This goes above neurology for one reason- it goes into the fundamentals of what everything is in science. In a very close metaphor, its like saying that you're more advanced into some science, so you can just be above the law of conservation of energy.

The fact that energy is only movement confines ALL of the study of neurology to that limitation. So, as I am trying to emphasize, it does not matter how complex the brain is, awareness is simply doing something that energy cannot, if energy only moves- causing us to be here. I am certain of the fact that I am here. My idea does not, however as so many people seem to keep thinking, say that I am attributing natural brain function to whatever this awareness is. I am also not saying that the brain does not evolve to, or have a physical and functional consciousness. Its doing something that is not required to be movement- causing us to be here.

Do you understand what I am saying yet?

Because I know no one has, and again, because I have to repeat myself with everyone here it seems, THAT IS NOT WHY I BELIEVE I AM RIGHT.

I believe I am right because of logic, purely. I could be the most cynical, anti-religious person, yet, I could no longer really refute my idea to myself!

Its doing something that is not required to be movement- causing us to be here.

Demonstrate this, not with an analogy, but with a real example. Post the data and the treatments used to measure the interaction.

Well, if I turn out to be right, testing this is impossible! That is, if only physical things can be tested, that is.

Testing it may actually still be impossible.

To understand my point, one would need to see it to understand it. It is not possible to explain it fully verbally. Its only possible to try to lead someone to the conception of the difference between energy and being here.

Psychology and neurology will never show that we can be here. That is obvious, to me at least. It will show how an illusion of awareness forms in a brain, but it will simply never show what causes being. It is hypothetically possible to show that being causes movement, in fact it is possible- it acts on our brain when our functional consciousness is active, but not possible to show that movement causes being. Its really strange to think about.

Its doing something that is not required to be movement- causing us to be here.

Demonstrate this, not with an analogy, but with a real example. Post the data and the treatments used to measure the interaction.

Well, if I turn out to be right, testing this [leprechauns] is impossible! That is, if only physical things can be tested, that is.

Testing it [leprechauns] may actually still be impossible.

To understand my point, one would need to see it [leprechauns] to understand it. It is not possible to explain it [leprechauns] fully verbally. Its only possible to try to lead someone to the conception of the difference between energy and being here.

You've led me as far as I'll go then, what you think, in your head, as being factual is as valid as any unsubstantiated claim anyone could pull out of their ass. You've not distinguished your idea from any other crackpot idea, no wonder it leads you to a religious conclusion, it's of a similar nature.

It is hypothetically possible to show that being causes movement, in fact it is possible- it acts on our brain when our functional consciousness is active, but not possible to show that movement causes being. Its really strange to think about.

You are possibly the most well spoken (forgetting "unicen") uneducated visitor to this site ever.

I just have so much pity that so many others cannot see what beautiful things I've come to comprehend full circle.

One cannot prove their own action of being aware to anyone, except for to oneself. It is by this statement that we will never know how every phenomenon works, and the idea of any higher force will never vanish.

One cannot prove their own action of being aware to anyone, except for to oneself.

I'll give it a shot, though:

I can't know for sure anything exists beyond my own awareness.Therefore everything in my experience is a product of my awareness.People in my experience say they are aware.People in my experience are a product of my awareness.Therefore everyone else's awareness is a product of my awareness.As my awareness is all that exists, my awareness is also their awareness.Therefore other people are also aware.Therefore other people are qualified to provide me with information regarding the world that my awareness produced.

Logged

God's existence is contingent upon the illusion that morality is dictated by religious authority.

I just have so much pity that so many others cannot see what beautiful things I've come to comprehend full circle.

One cannot prove their own action of being aware to anyone, except for to oneself. It is by this statement that we will never know how every phenomenon works, and the idea of any higher force will never vanish.

Pity doesn't support your assertion or demonstrate the interaction you claim exists.

The leprechauns are crying because you are so inept, therefore, leprechaun are real.

Have you started on your groundbreaking paper to send off to the world's most learned experts to analyze and learn from?

I just have so much pity that so many others cannot see what beautiful things I've come to comprehend full circle.

One cannot prove their own action of being aware to anyone, except for to oneself. It is by this statement that we will never know how every phenomenon works, and the idea of any higher force will never vanish.

Pity doesn't support your assertion or demonstrate the interaction you claim exists.

The leprechauns are crying because you are so inept, therefore, leprechaun are real.

Have you started on your groundbreaking paper to send off to the world's most learned experts to analyze and learn from?

Why not?

It didn't demonstrate it, but it made it very evident.

Think about it- its very strange that such a phenomenon would occur that only a certain, and I must note, random arrangement of atoms(mostly carbon, hydrogen and oxygen) is the only thing that can both detect this phenomenon, and display that it occurs, and can only display that to itself. You have to admit, this is a very interesting statement.

Think about it- its very strange that such a phenomenon would occur that only a certain, and I must note, random arrangement of atoms(mostly carbon, hydrogen and oxygen) is the only thing that can both detect this phenomenon, and display that it occurs, and can only display that to itself. You have to admit, this is a very interesting statement.

Quote

It didn't demonstrate it [leprehcauns], but it made it [leprechauns] very evident.

Think about it- its very strange that such a phenomenon would occur that only a certain, and I must note, random arrangement of atoms(mostly carbon, hydrogen and oxygen) is the only thing that can both detect this phenomenon, and display that it occurs, and can only display that to itself. You have to admit, this is a very interesting statement.

Because I came up with the basis for this about two weeks ago, after years on most of my time being devoted to understanding physics and existence.

There is no ignorance on my behalf, there is only your refusal to attempt to see it as I do. I understand how you feel though, because I've been in a similar position as you are towards me, and I know, and it would be fairly hard to try to bring yourself to go full circle with something like this, because you'd feel ridiculous. That is my understanding of it, and I am perfectly accepting of that. I just have a bit of pity that it would be so hard to overcome such a barrier. I guess I'd be asking you to take a leap of faith(trusting me that you wouldn't feel stupid afterwards if you tried it fully), but it wouldn't be into a blind religion- just a thought out perspective of reality.

I also understand the number of reasons for the hostile attitude towards me. The association of people trying to explain physics with religion, such as the claim that evolution is so complex that it has to be manipulated by something else, or maybe that the brain can't be as complex as it truly is, has made me look like the same person.

The difference is they used religion to explain physics. I just used physics to set a boundary.

And why have I not published this yet? I've not had the time!

I do plan to write a book or essay about it, possibly. For the sake of length, I'd combine it into a book about thinking with logic, spirituality, and science separately, and showing the points at which these three thinking systems meet. (i.e. science does not meet spirituality, but science meets logic, and logic can meet spirituality)

And about solipsism, as I admittedly just looked up the definition, the only thing we can know for sure that we have is being. Even our mind could be an illusion, but, that then begs the question, does it serve any purpose to assume that everything is an illusion? Obviously not. Its first grade intellectual reasoning.

So, there is a bit of that philosophy in me, but I do know that one cannot base themselves in any single particular philosophical system and be correct always, because every individual philosophical system is inchoate.

By the way, I have to logically dissect everything like this after my existential crisis...

You can imagine that artists' quotes bother me a lot! I do hope we can establish a better rapport than we have so far.

Free Thinker, I can empathize with your desire to communicate your recent epiphany of only two weeks ago. I once felt the same way, and it lasted about two weeks before I burned out. I later realized some of my thoughts were a bit sensational and uninformed (even if they did make for great sci-fi). However, being a rational and skeptical person, I kept most of those thoughts to myself, and thankfully I now only need to be slightly ashamed of my messianic attitude at the time. Surely people knew something had "happened" to me but were too polite to discourage me. Also, being a rational person, I knew that I had to be very careful about how I communicated my insight to other people, knowing that people would ridicule me if I made the slightest mistake (and rightly so!), so I chose my confidants wisely, first talking to the more intelligent but less outwardly judgemental people in my circle to have a sounding-board for my my wilder thoughts, only later piecing the coherent pieces together into something solid that the less incredulous and more vocal couldn't ridicule, if not agree with.

I suggest you take a few steps back and find another outlet for the urgency you feel in communicating with the world. The world isn't going anywhere. I know you feel like the time is now, that you must get your message out now, but such urgency can blind you to the reality of how difficult it is to change minds. Treat whatever you have not as the final answer, but as the first glimpse into many answers, and don't be afraid to admit to yourself if it turns out you were wrong.

Logged

God's existence is contingent upon the illusion that morality is dictated by religious authority.

Good thoughts L6. I'd like to add that it's good to be confident, but arrogance to the point of blindness is folly. Free Thinker, you may want to consider that perhaps your intelligence is not so much more than others that you don't even need to consider what they say. Even the smartest men in history listened to criticism, and were often enlightened for it. If your idea is worth conveying, it will stand up to scrutiny, without blind defense.

Logged

When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bike. Then I realised, the Lord doesn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me. - Emo Philips

Oh ya, I know. I have the formula for cold fusion all worked out, it's right beside my schematics for a perpetual motion machine, but I am so busy with work and I have karate tonight, so I'm just going to hold off on all that.

Free Thinker, I can empathize with your desire to communicate your recent epiphany of only two weeks ago. I once felt the same way, and it lasted about two weeks before I burned out. I later realized some of my thoughts were a bit sensational and uninformed (even if they did make for great sci-fi). However, being a rational and skeptical person, I kept most of those thoughts to myself, and thankfully I now only need to be slightly ashamed of my messianic attitude at the time. Surely people knew something had "happened" to me but were too polite to discourage me. Also, being a rational person, I knew that I had to be very careful about how I communicated my insight to other people, knowing that people would ridicule me if I made the slightest mistake (and rightly so!), so I chose my confidants wisely, first talking to the more intelligent but less outwardly judgemental people in my circle to have a sounding-board for my my wilder thoughts, only later piecing the coherent pieces together into something solid that the less incredulous and more vocal couldn't ridicule, if not agree with.

I suggest you take a few steps back and find another outlet for the urgency you feel in communicating with the world. The world isn't going anywhere. I know you feel like the time is now, that you must get your message out now, but such urgency can blind you to the reality of how difficult it is to change minds. Treat whatever you have not as the final answer, but as the first glimpse into many answers, and don't be afraid to admit to yourself if it turns out you were wrong.

Why should you have to worry about how one judges you online?

Really, this forum is a test. I'm trying to get an argument to work to get the point across more concisely and fully.

This isn't totally about thoughts. Its based on the limitation of energy being confined to movement. I doubt you saw it as I do, or perhaps you did, but were dissuaded by some abstract questioning- something I've been doing a lot of, and so far I have not been able to poke any real holes in my own theory when I've tried...

The point is, another phenomenon has to occur to cause being, other than what is essentially a bunch of infinitesimals existing at point A, then point B. I am now incapable of believing that there is not another phenomenon involved in the brain, unless I had amnesia. My incapability to believe it is just like both of our incapability to believe that evolution is a falsity.

I just read this post, and only the first few replies.So I've yet to know whether FT's theory has been refuted yet.But it sounds mighty interesting, and I'm hooked

I have never thought about this before, it's really interesting.Thanks for a good thread.

From your analogy, I can only perceive awareness as a manifestation from the brain.An optical illusion.

But then that brings up lots more questions.

Here's my point- functionally, energy is existence of a bunch of infinitesmals at point A, then point B, or rather, point A and point B over the fourth dimension.

If it was an illusion, there would be no being. That doesn't mean there would be no functional consciousness... That consciousness would be arbitrary, like a rock, and made up of essentially the same things- neutrons, electrons, protons, and all the subatomic particles(i.e. quarks) that make those up, which in the end, really is a load of energy, which functionally is a bunch of infinitesmals existing at point A then point B.

The reactions you get online are a litmus test for the reactions you'll get in so-called real life. In person, people are more polite, will smile and nod, but online, you will get as honest an assessment of two things that you can't get anywhere else: your idea(s) and your presentation of your idea(s).

I doubt you saw it as I do, or perhaps you did, but were dissuaded by some abstract questioning-

I'm certain no two experiences are the same, but I'm also certain we could find some point of agreement and go from there. So far, however, your presentation has not lent itself to meaningful discussion. You need more than non-sequiturs and arguments from ignorance and incredulity. You need evidence. Lacking evidence, you need sound logical reasoning. And neither of those has any value whatsoever unless you have a set of practical considerations and ramifications to convince people why they should care.

Logged

God's existence is contingent upon the illusion that morality is dictated by religious authority.

[1]The reactions you get online are a litmus test for the reactions you'll get in so-called real life. In person, people are more polite, will smile and nod, but online, you will get as honest an assessment of two things that you can't get anywhere else: your idea(s) and your presentation of your idea(s).

[3]I doubt you saw it as I do, or perhaps you did, but were dissuaded by some abstract questioning-

I'm certain no two experiences are the same, but I'm also certain we could find some point of agreement and go from there. So far, however, your presentation has not lent itself to meaningful discussion. You need more than non-sequiturs and arguments from ignorance and incredulity. You need evidence. Lacking evidence, you need sound logical reasoning. And neither of those has any value whatsoever unless you have a set of practical considerations and ramifications to convince people why they should care.

1. Thats why you get the honest reaction online.

2. Only to someone who doesn't read carefully.

3. The only ignorance I have is how to show what I can observe readily in my mind. It is truly non-verbal logic in my mind. Perhaps what I need to do is make some new terms, and define them. I'll spend some time searching for the answer as to how to translate my brain's code into English... Or prove that it is impossible to show someone else, just as you cannot prove to someone else that you have being, though you can prove you're conscious.

3. The only ignorance I have is how to show what I can observe readily in my mind. It is truly non-verbal logic in my mind. Perhaps what I need to do is make some new terms, and define them. I'll spend some time searching for the answer as to how to translate my brain's code into English... Or prove that it is impossible to show someone else, just as you cannot prove to someone else that you have being, though you can prove you're conscious.

I really hope you're young. Are you really, really trying to make an argument based on the sh!t you make up in your head, really?